RAM NAYAK versus U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 31-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

f 
RAM NA YAK 
A 
v. 
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION 
AUGUST 31, 2007 
(TAR UN CHA TIER.JEE AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.J 
B 
U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971-ss. JO r/w 16 (3)-
Acquisition of a sugar Undertaking under the Act-Employee claiming to be 
working in erstwhile Undertaking on the 'appointed day'-Termination of C 
the employee by oral order-labour Court holding the oral termination as 
bad and directing reinstatement-High Court setting aside the award in 
view of s. 16 (3)-0n appeal, held: A finding whether the employee was 
working under the earstwhile employer on the 'appointed day~ was necessary--
Hence employee directed to approach the prescribed Authority uls 10 r/w s. 
16 (3) for such finding-labour Laws. 
D 
The undertaking in which the appellant-employee was working vested 
with the respondent-Company under U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act, 
1971. The services of the appellant was terminated by an oral order. Appellant 
raised industrial dispute claiming that he was working under the erstwhile 
undertaking on the "appointed day" under the Act. Labbur Court held the E 
termination bad and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and 
back wages. The award was challenged in Writ Petition. High Court allowed 
the petition solely on the ground that award was bad in view ofs. 16 (3) of the 
1 
Act. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. In view of Section 10 read with Section 16(3) ofU.P. Sugar 
Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971, a finding whether the appellant was 
working under the respondent on the "appointed day" under the Acquisition 
F 
Act was necessary. For that purpose, it would be appropriate to direct the G 
appellant to approach the prescribed authority under Section 10 read with 
Section 16(3) of the Act for a finding whether he was exclusively employed in 
connection with the scheduled undertaking before the appointed day as the 
Acquisition Act, being a special act, is conferred with the power to make such 
a finding. (Para 4) (667-D, E) 
665 
H 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
2. In the event, the prescribed authority comes to a finding that the 
appellant was working with the scheduled undertaking on the appointed day, 
the Writ Petition filed by the Corporation before the High Court shall 
automatically stand restored and the High Court shall, thereafter, decide the 
Writ Petition on merits after taking into consideration the findings arrived 
B at by the prescribed authority in compliance with directions of this Court made 
in this regard. If, however, the prescribed authority C(>:Mes to a finding that 
t~ appellant was not working with the erstwhile employer on the appointed 
day, this appeal shall stand dismissed and the award shall also stand set.aside. 
(Para 5) (667-G; 668-A) 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JU~SDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4008 of2007. 
D 
From the final Order'dated 10.7.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at 
Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 5385/1998. 
Bharat Sangal and Abhinav Ramkrishna for the Appellant. 
Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay and Ajay Rai for the Respondent. 
' 
. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .. 
• 
I 
) 
T ARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave grantee!: 
E 
2. This appeal, by grant of special le~ve, is directed against the final 
judgment and order dated 10th July, 2006 passed by the Allahabad High Court 
in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.5385 of 1998 whereby the High Court 
had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the 11;ward 
). 
dated 5th June, 1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi, 
f 
F U .P. in Adjudication Dispute No.89 of 1994 directing re-instatement of the 
appellant with continuity of service and payment of full back wages by the 
respondent - U.P. State Sugar Corporation (for short '.the Corporation'). 
G 
3. The following reference wa5 .made for adjudication before the Labour 
Court: 
''Whether the termination of service by the employer of their workman 
Ram Nayakfrom /st June 1990 was bad or invalid." 
·.! 
The said reference came to be registered as Adjudication Dispute.No.89 of 
1994 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, yaranasi, U.P:,The appellant 
H claimed that he wa~ working under the erstwhile Ratna Sugar Mills on the 
RAMNAYAKv.U.P.STATESUGARCORPN.[TARUNCHAITERIEE,J.] 667 
>-
"appointed day" under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1971 A 
(hereinafter referred to as "the Acquisition Act"). On and from 24/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.